If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Don't be this guy

This video comes to us from Monroe. I'm all for open carry but this guy has an agenda to get noticed. An AR on his back and two pistols holstered. It's not that he doesn't have the right to do it, but looking for confrontation is going overboard. The paranoia doesn't help either

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

American colonists protested the Stamp Act because they had an agenda
Women breastfed in public in New York because they had an agenda
Black men and women ate at lunch counters in the South because they had an agenda
Gay couples helds hand in public because they had an agenda
Students protested the Viet Nam way because they had an agenda

Coca Cola and Pepsi advertise their products because they have an agenda

"Stupid dip **** citizens" nice.... he seems to hate everyone. And they use Lincolns as unmarked cars up there? Must have money....

That was a weak "ambush" they laid for him.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I certainly have to agree with you, Primus. Very negative, criticizes citizens, criticizes law enforcement. It was hilarious to see that nobody even bothered him except for one cop who asked how he was doing and another cop who asked him what he was doing.

If the poster of this video is on OCDO (and I'm almost certain he is) then no offense pal. This just seems to be over the top. Nothing wrong with an agenda, but trying to draw unneeded attention to yourself doesn't make sense to me.

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

American colonists protested the Stamp Act because they had an agenda
Women breastfed in public in New York because they had an agenda
Black men and women ate at lunch counters in the South because they had an agenda
Gay couples helds hand in public because they had an agenda
Students protested the Viet Nam way because they had an agenda

Coca Cola and Pepsi advertise their products because they have an agenda

So, I have to ask... what's the beef with agendas?

Falls I agree nothing wrong with an agenda. Its how you get stuff done. For example.... normalizing people to the everyday carry of firearms. Great agenda.

But to carry an Ar a thigh rig and a concealed pistol while walking along a very busy road into a shopping center (area) is kind of like making a baby in public in new York. Or gay couples having sex to promote their agenda in public.

This guy KNEW he was causing his fellow citizens to call the police. Its why he kept repeatedly calling calling them stupid.

Also.. is carrying 3 guns and a "survival" stick into heavily populated areas along very busy streets normal? Even to pro gun guys?

If he was on a trail with the rifle and stick sure seems normal and relevant to the activity.

If your activity knowing alarms other citizens and you are so paranoid you won't cross the street for dead of being "ambushed" then how are you normalizing anything? Even the other citizens he stopped and talked to were like "wtf with all the guns dude". And his response wasn't very warming either.

Each to his own.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

"The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Crappy video of mostly the ground posted three years ago. Some one who goes out with a video camera trying to incite a confrontation is just an attention ***** who does almost as much damage to the OC movement as an actual shooting. The majority of us carry when out conducting our regular everyday activities. This guy is out only for the reason of confrontation. These are the type of people that the CC only crowd always use as an example of us "crazy" OC'ers. These are the type of people that cause businesses like Starbucks to ask us to stay away.

"The beauty of the Second Amenment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson
"Evil often triumphs, but never conquers." Joseph Rouxhttp://nwfood.shelfreliance.com

Based on the youtube account name, I'm fairly certain the video poster is a member of these boards.

His method of carry would not suit me, I'd never be able to get an AR-15 off of my back quick enough to react to an imminent threat. However, he's not breaking any laws; why do we need to jump all over him for carrying differently than we would carry? Could it hurt "the cause?" Maybe, but why does that give any of us the right to tell him how he should carry? What about when {group of people} doesn't want us to carry holstered pistols at {specific location}? We don't listen to them (unless they're an authorized agent of said location and it's private property), so why should we expect him to have to listen to us?

Everyone has to make their own decisions on how they're going to carry, attacking each other because we disagree with one another's carry choice doesn't help "the cause" either.

Based on the youtube account name, I'm fairly certain the video poster is a member of these boards.

His method of carry would not suit me, I'd never be able to get an AR-15 off of my back quick enough to react to an imminent threat. However, he's not breaking any laws; why do we need to jump all over him for carrying differently than we would carry? Could it hurt "the cause?" Maybe, but why does that give any of us the right to tell him how he should carry? What about when {group of people} doesn't want us to carry holstered pistols at {specific location}? We don't listen to them (unless they're an authorized agent of said location and it's private property), so why should we expect him to have to listen to us?

Everyone has to make their own decisions on how they're going to carry, attacking each other because we disagree with one another's carry choice doesn't help "the cause" either.

I can only speak for myself when I say nothing I've said was meant to be an attack either personal or otherwise. As I said to each his own. Its certainly his right and prerogative to choose however and whenever he carries. As someone else put it its perfectly fine to have an agenda. Just sometimes your agenda may cause problems with a larger agenda that's all.

He nor anyone else was hurt or arrested so good on him in that aspect.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

"The wicked flee when no man persueth: but the righteous are as bold as a lion" Proverbs 28:1

Sorry guys, that's the way 'normalization' works.
April 20, 2012 - Large groups of young people 'toke it up in public' despite the threat of 6-month/$750 fines.
Two years later, Colorado legalizes medical marijuana.
Normalization - "At least they're only doing it in their homes, not out in public."

Two dozen women "look for a confrontation" by exposing their boobs and breastfeed their children in the lobby of a major metropolitan airport to protest one airline's policy.
Normalization - "It's only one woman,and it's only a boob. Perfectly natural part of life."

The early 60's, a dozen young black men "looking for a confrontation" totally occupy the lunch counter at a store.
Normalization - Black men and women are free to eat where they please in any restaurant today.

"Proper" and respectful use of the King's English goes along way towards communicating your position regardless of your attire and accoutrements. His manner of carry is certainly provocative and certainly not what I would do. Back in my neck of the woods we referred to these fellas as characters. As long as characters remain harmless we should simple think to our selves; "poor thing", he means well.

American colonists protested the Stamp Act because they had an agenda
Women breastfed in public in New York because they had an agenda
Black men and women ate at lunch counters in the South because they had an agenda
Gay couples helds hand in public because they had an agenda
Students protested the Viet Nam way because they had an agenda

Coca Cola and Pepsi advertise their products because they have an agenda

So, I have to ask... what's the beef with agendas?

Hi Falls, I certainly understand what you're saying. And you're right, maybe I should rephrase that. Agendas are a good thing in general. I just wonder if in this case the intent to have a confrontation with police is going above and beyond. The guy obviously has balls whereas I admittedly haven't OC'd anywhere yet but hiking trails. I'm not questioning his right to do what he's doing. Maybe it's the shaky camera, the overall negative attitude, the paranoia concerning "ambushes", and the intent of having a confrontation that rubs me the wrong way. This isn't normalizing open carry.

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

If I remember right these actions in this video were done because of previous copfrontations.

Monroe is smaller town were I doubt carrying guns raises too much alarm.

I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
"Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

The guy obviously has balls whereas I admittedly haven't OC'd anywhere yet but hiking trails. I'm not questioning his right to do what he's doing. Maybe it's the shaky camera, the overall negative attitude, the paranoia concerning "ambushes", and the intent of having a confrontation that rubs me the wrong way. This isn't normalizing open carry.

You haven't opened carried except hiking. Why is that? You fear squirrels but trust all of mankind? I suspect the reason might be that if as many limited accountability police surrounded you, watching you like a deer hunter from a blind, each picturing themselves winning the locker room killing pool, you'd pee yourself and dive into a storm sewer squealing like a 12 year old girl.

As far as the paranoia, read the above. Everything the open carrier was doing was legal. The presence of that many police might indicate to passing citizens otherwise. Who's at fault for that? You would assign responsibility to someone being victimized [yes, intimidation into relinquishing your rights is a victimization] for the perpetuation of a stigma?

Maybe you should look up the "hide your firearm to keep the right to keep your firearm" thread.

It had us all hugging and singing Kumbaya by the fourth post.

Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
~Citizen

From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

"People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."

You haven't opened carried except hiking. Why is that? You fear squirrels but trust all of mankind? I suspect the reason might be that if as many limited accountability police surrounded you, watching you like a deer hunter from a blind, each picturing themselves winning the locker room killing pool, you'd pee yourself and dive into a storm sewer squealing like a 12 year old girl.

As far as the paranoia, read the above. Everything the open carrier was doing was legal. The presence of that many police might indicate to passing citizens otherwise. Who's at fault for that? You would assign responsibility to someone being victimized [yes, intimidation into relinquishing your rights is a victimization] for the perpetuation of a stigma?

Maybe you should look up the "hide your firearm to keep the right to keep your firearm" thread.

It had us all hugging and singing Kumbaya by the fourth post.

You ok big guy? Wanna talk about it?

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

I can only speak for myself when I say nothing I've said was meant to be an attack either personal or otherwise. As I said to each his own. Its certainly his right and prerogative to choose however and whenever he carries. As someone else put it its perfectly fine to have an agenda. Just sometimes your agenda may cause problems with a larger agenda that's all.

He nor anyone else was hurt or arrested so good on him in that aspect.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

It seems this poster has forgotten to add that in the spirit of full disclosure, this poster doesn't open carry, although it is legal in the state he claims to frequent.

Sure thing. To answer your question I have only open carried on hiking trails because I haven't worked up the nerve to do it while going about my daily activities yet. I'm not scared of the police but for some reason I'm overly concerned about what others in downtown seattle would think. I'm not confident enough yet to discuss open carry with people I meet on the streets or law enforcement. I don't care for confrontation with the law. I just get agitated when I speak to the police so I'd prefer to stay away. I'm working up the courage though. Slowly but surely.

I certainly acknowledge that what the OC'er was doing was completely legal and within his right. I didn't really see anything in that video to indicate that they were at all interested in him. No confrontation except for the cop that asked how he was doing that day. Also, he pointed to cars in a nearby parking lot and claimed they were unmarked police vehicles. From my perspective I saw no ambush waiting for him just around the corner. All I saw was a guy geared up for no particular reason other than to become a YouTube star. I just think it's funny how he was all riled up and ready for a confrontation and nobody said jack.

In my very humble opinion I don't see how his actions helped the cause at all. I'm not saying I am either, but there's a difference between open carrying on a trail and carrying three firearms and a ninja staff on you while walking down the street and recording.

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

His actions and attitudes were, admittedly, a bit 'over the top.' But there is a psychological basis for it; people rehearse for what they expect to encounter, or what they may encounter. We (well, ahem, some of us) have conversations in our heads about what we'd say if ____, or if someone says _____.

Anybody who's acted, or been in sales, or debated has practiced, role played, rehearsed. Officers, by and large like to 'be in charge of the situation' and that rubs some personalities the wrong way; not everyone is a lamb.

If I remember right these actions in this video were done because of previous copfrontations.

Monroe is smaller town were I doubt carrying guns raises too much alarm.

Yes that is me. It was partly to "test the waters" while I was living in that area.

None of the times while I carried the AR15 did I get more than a questioning.

One time when I did not carry it, I got arrested.

Originally Posted by bebop4one

Hi Falls, I certainly understand what you're saying. And you're right, maybe I should rephrase that. Agendas are a good thing in general. I just wonder if in this case the intent to have a confrontation with police is going above and beyond. The guy obviously has balls whereas I admittedly haven't OC'd anywhere yet but hiking trails. I'm not questioning his right to do what he's doing. Maybe it's the shaky camera, the overall negative attitude, the paranoia concerning "ambushes", and the intent of having a confrontation that rubs me the wrong way. This isn't normalizing open carry.

If you only saw the RTKA issue at stake then, sir, you are blind.

I have had dealings with the police in the area before and I had/have no trust in them.
Yes, I was carrying the AR15 that day to make multiple points. I was also meeting a member of OCDO for coffee and I had asked ahead of time to know if I was supposed to carry the same way I did in the first video, because that is why he had contacted me in the first place.

Also, I wanted answers to some questions. The best way to obtain those answers is to run a test.
1. If you don't have a car, how would you get a rifle home?
2. If you're not breaking the law, what are the odds that the police/911 dispatcher will not tell people that it's not illegal?
3. Would the police waste the time and resources to follow a LAC around?
4. Are the roads setup to be safe for all legal modes of travel? (the right to travel issue...)
etc.

On a side note, I was arrested at later date while I was not carrying either the walking staff or the AR15, along the same road, around the same time of day. I had thought that this, non-confrontation, had solidified that the police would no longer stop and harass me for OC, so I did not have the camera that day.

Edit:
I met the member before I read the rules and started posting here. Before that this was just an info forum I had created an account with just to keep tabs of threads I had read and then forgot about it for awhile.

Last edited by Freedom1Man; 01-27-2014 at 11:10 PM.

Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Well Freesom1man if anything you're a good sport. I was just reading your restaurant thread too. Small community I guess.
Take this post with a grain of salt, though. You've practiced this right more than I ever have so I'm by no means an expert on the matter.

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."
- Clint Eastwood

Sure thing. To answer your question I have only open carried on hiking trails because I haven't worked up the nerve to do it while going about my daily activities yet. I'm not scared of the police but for some reason I'm overly concerned about what others in downtown seattle would think. I'm not confident enough yet to discuss open carry with people I meet on the streets or law enforcement. I don't care for confrontation with the law. I just get agitated when I speak to the police so I'd prefer to stay away. I'm working up the courage though. Slowly but surely.

I certainly acknowledge that what the OC'er was doing was completely legal and within his right. I didn't really see anything in that video to indicate that they were at all interested in him. No confrontation except for the cop that asked how he was doing that day. Also, he pointed to cars in a nearby parking lot and claimed they were unmarked police vehicles. From my perspective I saw no ambush waiting for him just around the corner. All I saw was a guy geared up for no particular reason other than to become a YouTube star. I just think it's funny how he was all riled up and ready for a confrontation and nobody said jack.

In my very humble opinion I don't see how his actions helped the cause at all. I'm not saying I am either, but there's a difference between open carrying on a trail and carrying three firearms and a ninja staff on you while walking down the street and recording.

I suspect that there is some history between that open carry advocate, the police and that particular town that preceded this video. I also believe it would be a poorly presented obtuse act to believe that many police squad cars were positioned around that particular open carry advocate by accident. Presence can be a form of intimidation. How many AR rifles were at the ready during this walk? Paranoia? Would wildlife not avoid a water source that had that many predators at the wait? Isn't that a form of intimidation? Maybe you have better insights than I into the human psyche.

Personally, I've had enough of altering my life to avoid opinion enforcing cops. If riding a camel is legal and my desire to do so, I would be more than offended if an armed force of government sanctioned thugs showed up to intimidate me into abandon my rights to travel by camel with non-verbal threats to my life and or liberty. Yet some find that thug cop behavior perfectly acceptable when someone exercises their 2A rights. Not talking about engaging in unnatural sex acts with barn yard animals at 4th and Main. The open carry advocate was over the top. He also had to feel like a black man with a bulls-eye target on his back walking through a white supremacist convention.

There's been discussions here about baiting. I'm of the school that thinks you can't bait an honest citizen into stealing a car with the keys in it. An honest person is guided by their morals and awareness of consequences. I believe the same holds true for police. A citizen engaged in lawful activity should have nothing to fear of police, and an honest policeman can't be baited into violating a citizen because of their morals and awareness of consequences. But cops put out bait cars because there are unscrupulous citizens, and open carriers do the rights walk because there are unscrupulous cops. There is some differing opinion as to what percent the unscrupulous represent. Most police treat citizens like they potential car thieves, and most citizens view police as potential violent predators.

ETA: I see Freedom1Man has posted since I began this post and finally got back to posting it. And it looks like they who came to scoff have backed off the "Don't be this guy" once a little more was made known.

Last edited by Fuller Malarkey; 01-27-2014 at 11:40 PM.

Liberty is so strongly a part of human nature that it can be treated as a no-lose argument position.
~Citizen

From the cop’s perspective, the expression “law-abiding citizen” is a functional synonym for “Properly obedient slave".

"People are not born being "anti-cop" and believing we live in a police state. That is a result of experience."